the spring, at the very fountain head, he found, to his utter horror, the half-decayed carcass of a huge serpent, and it flashed upon him that it was deadly poison he had been lifting to his lips, that the faithful bird had saved his master's life, and that this same master in a fit of blind passion had ruthlessly destroyed his. Full of remorse, he dug a grave, laid the bird tenderly in it, and afterward, to mark the spot and tell of his gratitude and his grief, he raised a marble shaft above this his humble benefactor. Is there not a lesson here for us? When we are baffled and beaten back in some of our cherished purposes, when the cups of sparkling pleasure which we are eagerly raising to our parched lips are dashed from us, let us not in our haste conclude that our prayers are unblessed, that God has either turned away in deaf indifference, and left us to our fate, or become our covert foe. The seemingly hostile forces may be the very angels of his kindest providence, commissioned to smite from our lips by the beating of their strong pinions sparkling drafts which have come from poisoned springs. With these explanations I reaffirm with added emphasis that every reasonable prayer offered in a right spirit is certain of favorable answer. To this, as we have seen, science can urge no valid objection. It is in consonance with the soundest philosophy; it is in fulfilment of divine promise; it responds to the deepest intuitions of human hearts. The first effect of modern scientific inquiry has been to weaken faith, and make God seem simply an impersonal, great First Cause, rather than a present loving Father, and ourselves but processes in a vast evolution, parts in an unchangeable order, wheels and pinions, merely, in a mechanism whose movements reach from motes to sun-clusters. A reaction from this paralyzing scepticism has already set in. A faith fervent as that felt before science had birth, seems destined again to prevail, and to be the outcome of this very spirit of inquiry which for the past few decades has threat ened to relegate it forever to the limbo of the world's outgrown and discarded thought. Reappearing this time as the ripe result of this nineteenth century's tireless and fearless research into time's deepest mysteries, I cannot see how ever again it can lose its hold on the hearts of men. BY THE REV. A. HASTINGS ROSS, D. D., PORT HURON, MICH. SINCE the union of church and state in the fourth century, no form of the connection has been more intimate than that set up in New England. Fleeing from the evils of the Anglican establishment, our Puritan fathers, unable to emancipate themselves from the customs of Christendom, made church and state substantially identical. We propose to detail their system, and then show its sad effects on American Congregationalism. THE MASSACHUSETTS BAY COLONY. The first Salem was settled in 1628; Boston in 1630. General Court met in Boston in the same year. Seven months thereafter, on May 18, 1631, that Court restricted the right to vote in civil affairs to adult male church-members. The colonists had come hither with no fixed ecclesiastical principles or usages. They, unlike the Pilgrims, lacked uniformity. Soon confusion began to prevail. They felt the need of rules of ecclesiastical order as greatly as they had felt the necessity of restricting suffrage. Yet the General Court did not presume to enact such rules, but in 1 The law reads: "To the end the body of the commons may be preserved of honest and good men, it was likewise ordered and agreed that for time to come no man shall be admitted to the freedom of this body politic, but such as are members of some of the churches within the limits of the same."-Mass. Records (Shurtleff), Vol. i. p. 87. 214 stead it adopted, in 1635, a minute, recognizing the right of If only church-members could vote and hold office, there needed to be some limit put upon the gathering of the excluded into churches, else whoever wished could become freemen simply by organizing themselves into churches. This short way into freedom began to be taken, causing "much trouble and disturbance." Taught by "sad experience," the General Court, in 1636, enacted a law defining what should be recognized as duly constituted churches. Such churches must first secure the approbation of the magistrates and the consent of a majority "of the churches in the jurisdiction," to their formation, or their members could not vote or hold office. Naturally those thus excluded 1" This court doth entreat the elders and brethren of every church within this jurisdiction that they will consult and advise of one uniform order of discipline in the churches, agreeable to the Scriptures, and then to consider how far the magistrates are bound to interpose for the preservation of that uniformity and peace of the churches."-Mass. Records, Vol. i. pp. 142, 143. 2 Cambridge Platform, Chap. xvii. After assigning reasons for the law, it was "ordered that all persons are to take notice that this Court doth not, nor will hereafter, approve of any as shall henceforth join in any pretended way of such companies of men church fellowship, without they shall first acquaint the magistrates, and the elders of the greater part of the churches in this jurisdiction with their intenAnd further, it was ordered, that tions, and have their approbation therein. sought retaliation by refusing to support the privileged churches; but not so could they escape. The General Court, in 1638, enacted a law compelling such support.1 This made the state-church supreme. Yet questions had arisen whether the law of 1631 applied also to town affairs. No one in the colony could vote or hold office unless a member of some recognized church therein; were the several towns subject to this law in choosing selectmen and other officers? So the Court decreed in 1635.2 Again, two years later, the law of 1631 was defined so as to exclude all from office except freemen. Lest these rigid laws should be relaxed by parties within the churches, the Court decreed that none but the moral and orthodox should be allowed to act as magistrates or deputies, or be voted for under a heavy penalty. The no. person, being a member of any church which shall hereafter be gathered without the approbation of the magistrates, and the greater part of the said churches, shall be admitted to the freedom of this commonwealth."-Mass. Records, Vol. i. p. 168. 1 After reciting reasons, the law runs: "It is therefore hereby declared, that every inhabitant in any town is liable to contribute to all charges, both in church and commonwealth, whereof he doth or may receive benefit; and withal it is also ordered, that every such inhabitant who shall not voluntarily contribute, proportionately to his ability, with other freemen of the same town, to all common charges, as well for upholding the ordinances in the church as otherwise, shall be compelled thereto by assessment and distress to be levied by the constable, or other officer of the town, as in other cases." -Mass. Records, Vol. i. pp. 240, 241. 2 "It was ordered, that none but freemen shall have any vote in any town, in any action of authority, or necessity, or that which belongs to them by virtue of their freedom, as receiving of inhabitants, and laying out of lots, etc."-Mass. Records, Vol. i. p. 161. "It is the intent and order of the Court that no person shall hereafter be chosen to any office in the commonwealth but such as are freemen.”. Mass. Records, Vol. i. p. 188. +1654. "Forasmuch as, according to the present form of government of this jurisdiction, the safety of the commonwealth, the right administration of justice, the preservation of the peace, and purity of the churches of Christ therein, under God, doth much depend upon the piety, wisdom, and soundness of the General Court, not only magistrates but deputies, it is therefore ordered by this Court and the authority thereof, that no man, although a |